England and Pakistan finally have something in common. No, it’s not cricket. It’s blasphemy. In Pakistan, you can find yourself on death row if a single Muslim alleges he saw you sitting with your backside on a Koran. In England, you can find yourself trundled away on the tumbrels of political friends and foes, guillotined by media headlines and left to rot in the morgue of a destroyed career if a single woman alleges you put your hand on her knee (or backside).

In both countries, you are guilty until proven innocent, and you may never be proven innocent. So steer clear of Mo (Mohammed) in Pakistan, or Mo (Maureen) in England!

Pakistan is the only country in the world where a person can be found guilty of blasphemy on the word of a single accuser with no corroboration. The presumption is that if a Muslim makes a complaint against a non-Muslim then the accused is guilty. Even the police and judiciary comply with this presumption. With Section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code, a defendant is faced with a Kafkaesque trial in the brave Islamic world of judicial phantasmagoria.

England is now marching to the progressive drumbeat of this enlightened Islamic country it created in 1947. The description of sexual touching in our Sexual Offences Act 2003 is as surreal as melting clocks in Salvador Dali’s paintings or Karachi’s courtrooms: ‘A person (A) commits an offence if (a) he intentionally touches another person (B), (b) the touching is sexual, (c) B does not consent to the touching, and (d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.’

Are there objective standards by which one can prove intention? Or is ‘intention’ to be evidenced by subjective, speculative or emotional claims? How does one define sexual in a hyper-sexual culture? What if person (A) reasonably believes that person (B) has consented to being ‘touched’ or vice versa? What if there is a rush of dopamine and oxytocin and vasopressin and both reasonably believe that consent was given until the endorphin high suddenly plummeted? What happens if the accuser is suffering from ‘false memory syndrome’?

Don’t expect to find a reasonable explanation to such questions. Rather, be prepared for a high-voltage shock. The small print in our law defines ‘touching’ as ‘any part of the body, or with anything else, and can be through clothing’. In R v H (Karl Anthony) [2005], the Court of Appeal held that contact with an individual’s clothing was sufficient to amount to ‘touching’. Statutory Warning: Hugging or shaking a woman’s hand can destroy you for life.

Take a deep breath and read the next section helpfully provided by the Crown Prosecution Service. ‘Where touching was not automatically by its nature sexual, it was possible to ascertain whether the touching had been sexual by determining whether by its nature it might have been sexual and if so whether in the circumstances the purpose had in fact been sexual.’ It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a clever lawyer to make sense of the above.

Here’s the icing on the cake! For this offence you can join Norman Fletcher ‘doing porridge’ for six months to ten years. Be very afraid! Big Sister is watching you.

No decent person will deny the ugly and odious, threatening and dehumanising nature of sexual harassment. As a reporter, I was bursting with effusive praise when police launched a campaign against ‘eve teasing’ (Indian English slang for mild forms of sexual harassment) in Mumbai. The police were protecting women and not promoting a pernicious ideology that has begun to use the law as a weapon of terror against men. The Mumbai police had not succumbed to the Left-wing hysteria that is now demanding sexual harassment to be classified as a ‘hate crime’ based on the feminist slogan that ‘misogyny is hatred’.

While Western feminazis are losing the plot on real sexual harassment and seething with faux moral indignation just because a male hand accidentally brushes a woman’s rear, a courageous Pakistani Muslim woman is insisting that Pakistan return to the dictum Ei incumbet probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (‘the burden of proof is upon the one who declares, not upon one who denies’) in both blasphemy and sexual harassment cases.

Accusations of blasphemy and sexual harassment are often used to settle scores, says Rabia Ahmed. ‘But what of the cases where there is no way to prove the accuser right?’ she asks. Just as Christians and other religious minorities are vulnerable to accusations of blasphemy, so men are vulnerable to accusations of sexual harassment. ‘Their mere presence can ruin a man, personally as well as professionally,’ she writes. ‘It is all the more important, then, that such accusations should be verified.’

But crucially, says Ahmed, ‘there is no way to verify the truth of sexual accusations made years after the event, and some very public accusations were made decades after a supposed event. Unless these are verifiable, surely it is best in such cases for the accuser to stay away from the person she accuses and carry on maintaining the silence she has for so many years, unless the accused still has access to her’. Sadly, this is precisely the wisdom the Church of England failed to take into account in its farcical trial and hasty condemnation of Bishop George Bell, as I will explain in my ‘Rebel Priest’ column tomorrow.

When the media plays judiciary and pronounces the defendant guilty, the media is guilty of slander or libel. False accusation is one reason why many cases of sexual harassment unravel before they are even brought to court. Academics point out that ‘the frequency of false allegations of sexual assault’ is one of the biggest controversies affecting the discourse related to violence against women.

An American study estimates the prevalence of false allegations to be between 2 and 10 per cent. A British study by Harris and Grace (1999) showed that 43 per cent of complaints of rape were false or malicious. During a BBC Radio 4 programme (25 April 2006), a judge expressed his belief in the frequency of false allegations. ‘It is very emotive to tell us that 14,000 allegations were made in 2004 and only 2,500 were prosecuted . . . Is it not that there are unfortunately thousands of false allegations?’

Another judge quoted in the book Sexual Assault and the Justice Gap: A Question of Attitude says: ‘I think it’s very easy to make a false allegation. It’s increasingly easy. Particularly as now you no longer have the corroboration rule. I think the very nature of the cases tends to be one word against another . . . I think there are many more cases now in which there are false allegations.’

In the ethnic cleansing of patriarchy, men are collateral damage. Teen Vogue columnist Emily Lindin tweets that she is ‘not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations’. She presses on: ‘Sorry. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.’

Feminazis have inverted the pyramid of universal jurisprudence and no longer give a damn about the oppression of women. Justice, truth and morality are on the scaffold. Power, politics and ideology are on the throne. The necromancers of feminism, postmodernism and Leftism have resurrected the sleeping spirits of the Salem witch trials and the French Revolution. England can no longer claim moral superiority over Pakistan.


  1. An American study estimates the prevalence of false allegations to be between 2 and 10 per cent. A British study by Harris and Grace (1999) showed that 43 per cent of complaints of rape were false or malicious.

    I’ve seen a statistic whereby in accusations of sexual abuse by children against those working with children as their main job or as part of their job, school teachers, Scouts and Guides, clergy, sports trainers, etc, the % of false accusations can rise as high as 80%-90%. I know that the majority of investigations made into such cases fall apart, where they are competently investigated anyway, either from evidence blatantly demonstrating innocence or from the children admitting that they made it up as an attempt to harm a disliked adult.

    Though it’s true that a significant number of investigations fall apart from lack of solid evidence, regardless of actual guilt or innocence.

    It’s certainly gravely mistaken anyway to take the raw number of those accused of sexual abuses more seriously than it needs to be. I read yesterday somewhere else that whilst the number of accusations has skyrocketed, the number of actual convictions in a Court of Law has remained quite static. This suggests that false accusations, whether from ignorance, stupidity, or outright malice are becoming more and more common.

    • The problem with accusations made by children is that they can be planted in kids’ minds by adults, including so called professionals. Those as old as me will remember the hysteria of recovered memory syndrome and ritual satanic abuse in the late 80s/early 90s; the accusations were false and were largely created by social workers and psychiatrists suggesting to children that they had been abused. I still remember the film of the dolls these nutcases used to help children ‘recover’ their experiences, which massively exaggerated the size of human genitalia so no surprise what kids pointed to when confronted with these monstrous things.

      • I worked with social workers at this time. They were desperate to find ‘satanic abuse’, it was the fashionable thing. When the Government investigation couldn’t find a single case, they just quietly moved onto their next obsession. It’s now trans this that and the other.

    • ” … are becoming more and more common.”: if you lower the price of anything there will be more takers. Anonymity, belief from the first moment the allegation is made, make the cost for some malevolent and psychologically troubled people bearable. This is entirely predictable to anyone who knows the basics of the economy of human action – which, of course, socialists and like-minded people do not.

    • If we are concerned with truth & justice then no rape trial should take place without substantial evidence e.g. cctv, dna, iPhone images etc.
      If a young child is molested, then they should learn at home & at school that they
      must complain to parents/teachers/police as quickly as possible.
      That is the ideal position and one which would have been reasonable in the UK I was born in.
      Sadly, as Rotherham showed, teachers, police, local politicians, social workers are often
      corrupted by political correctness i.e. support for immigrant child molesters & rapists.
      I forsee a future when decent British parents will be forced to take the law into their own hands – especially in areas subject to muslim colonisation.

      • If a young child is molested, then they should learn at home & at school that they
        must complain to parents/teachers/police as quickly as possible


        Well said.

  2. As Britain moves even closer to commonality with Pakistan, the feminist pushing the hysteria will probably end up being judged in the Sharia court. I, if I live long enough to see this commonality, will train to be a lift operator.

  3. Yesterday saw the result of the investigation into the Rev George bell accusations and also the collapse of the Liam Allen rape trail. Both show in different ways how toxic feminism has changed our society.

    Over 70% of the population when polled regularly say men should also have anonymity when charged in sex assault cases. Indeed most of the judiciary now support this view. But as with many things our establishment elite ignore the public.

    Truth has been the greatest victim of Feminism. Ironically the greatest damage has been caused the the policy of “come forward, you will be believed” This is a malevolent ideology which is doing heartbreaking damage to innocent men. But it is the public’s faith in the integrity our Police and our Judicial system which is taking the biggest battering, that lost credibility will not come back overnight.

    • The news of the Liam Allen rape trial completely proves the point Dr Gomes is making and the statistics he cites. The ‘victim’ who obviously ‘cannot be named’ complained that Allen (who can be named and shamed) raped her at least six times. Police withheld vital evidence. When the judge ordered that it be disclosed they showed that she continued to pester Allan for casual sex, told friends how much she enjoyed having sex with him and discussed her fantasies of being raped and having violent sex. Wow! Speak about malicious and false accusations.

      • Absolutely malicious. The fact that she will invariably not be charged with anything is counter to all natural justice.

      • I don’t know the law on this, but could the police be prosecuted for this? It seems that they should be.

        • Indeed this should be and so should the accuser. As my friend below comments, letting her get away with false accusation flies in the face of every principle of natural justice.

        • The police? The woman needs jailing. Most wimmin are hateful nasty pieces of work like my dear old mamma said to me.

      • Of course, the common law would say, “If she cannot be identified, he is completely innocent”. Our principles have always stated that we have a right to confront our accuser.

        Yes, I know, this is the new millennium and everything is different now. Different yes, but much worse and these people will find out fairly soon that it is worse for them too.

        By the way, a gathering consensus in America believes, in at least the Weinstein case, the women were complicit, or worse. Funny how their careers flourished until they came forward.

        • You are absolutely right. And yes, the women victimised by Weinstein waited till they blossomed from starlets into celebrities before they had the courage to come forward. How convenient.

    • “public’s faith in the integrity our Police and our Judicial system”.
      Faith? Integrity? Police and Judicial system? Your aving a larf.

    • > That credibility, which took centuries to build, will not come back overnight if its lost.

      Indeed. What people do not realise, is that judicial system must be just and fair by necessity, otherwise it will replaced with vigilantism and blood feuds. The later is the state of affairs in hundreds of countries over the world. People avoid the state as an arbiter, because the state is seen as crooked.

      That’s why Russian oligarchs sign their contacts under English jurisdiction – it is a guarantee of a fair treatment. The alternative would be: a competition who will pay/threaten the judge and the jury more, optionally followed by a turf war.

      • I believe that the very high murder rates in Moscow and other Russian cities in the 1990s was due to ‘biznizmen’ establishing their territories by murdering competitors, either directly or by using hitmen.
        Now of course the territories have been established so the law rather than the gun is the instrument of choice for resolving disputes.

        • Could well be. It was here back in the ‘Old West’. I imagine it was in England during the Viking raids as well. Certainly worked out well for Sigurd, the Earl of Northumbria, not to mention the indirect founder of St. Clement Dane’s.

    • Dude the courts and police credibility was lost a long time ago. I actively say to their face that they are anti-man and how would their son, brother, father feel if they knew how men had been treated, none of them even argue with me; but just look embarrassed..
      Until more people start lobbying them, nothing is going to change….

  4. When the man on the end of an accusation of sexual misdemeanour of any kind is well known, then the law does not need to be invoked. There are two types of trial: one by established judicial procedures, the other by various forms of media. The latter is incredibly cheap, quick, easy to apply, requires no knowledge of the law or any messy legal arguments or procedures and is cast-iron guaranteed to result in a guilty verdict. The punishment is also likely to be just as damaging as any jail sentence. No wonder it is the weapon of choice by so many.

    • > The punishment is also likely to be just as damaging as any jail sentence. No wonder it is the weapon of choice by so many.

      What surprises me about the women, who use this strategy to punish powerful, wealthy men, is the sense of invulnerability on the side of the former. If I would ever cross a path of such a person, I will be concerned with my personal safety for the rest of my life. “As damaging as jail sentence”, but IT IS NO A JAIL SENTENCE! The guy is free, extremely angry, have a lot of money still and probably connected. And as you, the accuser, already told us, he’s a misogynistic evil pervert.

      The judicial process is formal, public, and protects both parties. But a public accusation? Would a WashPo or NYT provide those women with the armed bodyguard squad for the next few decades?

      How many of the accusers will die in car crashes, muggings, unexpected cancer attacks over the next decade? Who knows.

      • I agree, powerful men have ways and means.

        If the police do not have the “resources” to read a phone transcript, they will not investigate an accident.

        As we become more third world, we will get third world “justice”. As anyone who has lived and worked in the third world knows, the place may have laws, but 90% are not enforced, or can be “overlooked”.

        The rich get “justice”, either with the police’s help, or more often without.

      • In any state in which the law is there to punish political dissidents and the police are merely political enforcers, good people are the most vulnerable and most likely to fall foul of the “law”. The ones least affected are criminals (in the normal sense of the word) as these people have the skills, temperament and contacts to avoid getting caught and the least trust in legal processes. Career criminals have less compunction about resorting to the gun or paying hitmen to do their dirty work. Good people would not think of intimidating witnesses, but bad people would not hesitate to do this. By a process of Darwinian selection, therefore, the bad guys come out best.

  5. ‘Sorry. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.’

    Let that sink in

      • She might be. When there’s no justice, there’s always vigilantism and blood feuds. Who would protect her from an acid attack by a desperate man, whose life she helped to demolish so utterly that he have nothing to lose?

    • ‘Sorry. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.’
      What she means is that that is the price some poor innocent guy with have to pay and she doesn’t give a sh*t. Its all about me as usual with this crowd.

    • One could be forgiven for thinking that the printing of such a remark was a “typo” . The fact that it was no such thing should frighten us . Heinrich Himmler made similar remarks about the need for the SS to be “strong” in carrying out the ” necessary but distasteful task ” of murdering millions of people . The feminist movement is slowly changing from being foolish to being evil .

    • The real fun will start when before committing suicide, men would firebomb the houses of false accusers.

      But, as she said, this is the price she’s willing to pay.

  6. There is a closer affinity between militant feminism and islam than that described here. Today’s feminists flatly refuse to condemn the numerous misogynistic practices endemic in muslim society. Nonsensically, sharia-supporting Linda Sarsour presents herself as a feminist icon in the United States.

    Over here, Canadian blogger Lauren Southern recently published a film, in which she challenged feminists marching in London to condemn the muslim treatment of women. There was a lot of exaggerated eye-rolling, accompanying comments along the lines of, “This isn’t about islam” and the reliable fallback for all lefty know-nothing’s, “I can’t believe you’re even asking that!” It all rather prompted the question: what on Earth were they marching about?

    • > Today’s feminists flatly refuse to condemn the numerous misogynistic practices endemic in muslim society.

      Owen, the modern movement that calls itself “feminists” DOES NOT CARE A BIT ABOUT WOMEN, not for the last 50 years or so. Rebuke them for playing along with the Muslims is like condemn modern socialist parties for accepting donations from capitalists. Both are merely vehicles for public self-promotion.

      A feminist blabing against Islam will not receive funding or political power. She might receive a very real death threat though, or public accusation in Islamophobia (that will bury her political career). So she keeps her mouth shut on the subject, and goes for soft, easy targets, like “the Patriarchal network of white men”.

  7. ‘If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.’ Undoing the patriarchy? Meaning what exactly?

    • > Meaning what exactly?

      Shhhhh. We can’t really ask demagogues to clearly define their aims, do we? If we say clearly what “the Patriarchy”, or “racism”, or “inequality” is, then it would be possible to measure the performance of politicians on dismantling those things – and cut funding for underperformers.

      The Patriarchy is Evil, ok? Fighting Evil is eternal struggle. You can’t really win, but you can lose. Hence every feminist activist group requires perpetual, ever-increasing funding.

  8. Where are the feminist protests about the wholesale abuse of young children by Muslm males?
    5736 victims to date spread across 50 towns and Cities across the UK.

  9. Tragically, & stupidly, most UK feminists see themselves as being “left wing”
    and will support any garbage or race hate pedalled by our “left”, which increasingly
    resembles the 1930s “right”, though the Germans did call themselves socialists.
    There are some decent leftist feminists, notably Julie Burchill, but the handful of decent
    feminists in the public eye are essentially conservatives.
    The agenda of the Labour Party is that of Gramsci & Trotsky (sound like East End tailors)
    and that agenda hates the nation state amongst other things.
    It particularly hates the UK and the US and though it can never win in the US, where 90+% of the population is Judeo Christian/Secular but it can win in the UK.
    Thanks to fear of being branded “racist” or, oxymoronically, “islamophobic” and fear of the BBC
    no mainstream party will admit what we face.
    I gather the new head of BBC news was mildly criticised by al BEEB, when she repeatedly
    described the murderous looters in the London riots as “protestors”.
    That is the type of person who our allegedly “conservative” government has to appease.
    Unless the Tories both move to the “right” on the EU & immigration and simultaneously
    stop electoral fraud (which will guarantee a Labour victory), we will be the next Venezuela.

    • > There are some decent leftist feminists, notably Julie Burchill

      Julie walked out on her first son when he was five.

      Her second son was a junkie that committed suicide.

      This train wreck is anything but decent anyone.

      • Quite right about Burchill. She is more entertaining than the usual feminist but that is all you can say.

          • “grrrrrrllllpoooowwwaaahhhh !!!!” is an internet fabrication designed by a troll to keep this website that Leftards hate from flourishing !!!!!

          • Overall they are ugly, fat, sad, smelly, unwashed, badly dressed, with high-pitched voices, butch haircuts and pathetic.

      • I know nothing of her private life.
        Sounds sordid.
        I was referring to her articles & the brand of feminism she represents.

        • Her brand of feminism is that of an old, unhappy woman, that cannot longer allow herself to alienate whatever shreds of attention she still commands from men with open misandry, but still can’t change the tune she played during all of her life.

          It’s a compromise made out of necessity.

          Expect to see more of it as more and more of the post-second-wave feminists age. A heterosexual feminist that lost her youth and wasted her chance of marriage is a sad sight. I am the complete opposite of a compassionate person, but those women make me feel sorry.

  10. “Jules Gomes: Britain’s feminists march to the drumbeat of Islamic fundamentalism”

    A good post, indeed yet you do not spell it out though the subtext is there but dots not quite joined. British feminists indeed march to the drumbeat and in lock step with the Islamic fundamentalists and the marching Horst Wessel – booms ever louder.

  11. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of
    undoing the patriarchy that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.’

    Said emily and I emphasize: “that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay”

    erm, excuse me love but it’s a price you won’t be asked to meet – now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

  12. In this post-truth era, gays and lesbians can buy anything they want including children so women like Emily Lindin think that she can undo patriarchy there is nothing shocking about it. The agenda of the Feminazis is to undo everything that constitutes a good healthy human society. They are an extremely individualistic, selfish breed who will sacrifice everything that obstructs their self aggrandisement. They do not realise that the innocent victim of their wicked pursuit to undo patriarchy can destroy their own innocent father, brother or husband if they happen to find any( I would doubt if any sane guy would marry a feminize) or their won son if they happen to have one of their own blood…( I mean not the one purchased by a biological father). But would they care? They are devoid of any feelings for others, all that they know is their own feelings and their pursuit of power over men. Such women are as despicable as the ISIS. They are the Jungian Terrible Mothers.

  13. > The description of sexual touching in our Sexual Offences Act 2003 is as surreal as melting clocks in Salvador Dali’s paintings or Karachi’s courtrooms: ‘A person (A) commits an offence if (a) he intentionally touches another person (B), (b) the touching is sexual, (c) B does not consent to the touching, and (d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.’

    Well, there’s one thing that Sexual Offences Act 2003 is clear about: a “person (A)” that “commits an offence” is “he”.

      • Look at their definition of rape. In UK, a rape offender is by definition a person with a penis.

        A man was penetrated by a woman with an object against his will? Nope. Not rape.

        • This is truly shocking! So a woman cannot rape a man? Why won’t the feminists change this sexist law? It should disempower them to know that a woman is incapable of rape, should it not?

          • It’s not that women are incapable of rape (some are), it’s the state that is incapable of prosecution.

            Now, would you call a group that is above the law – disempowered?

        • I’ll use a hackneyed phrase in its literal meaning for once …

          Despite Brexit“, the ECHR and even the ECJ will continue to have jurisdiction to overturn this sort of grotesque institutionalised sexism.

        • Women can have penises and men can have vaginas.

          Why is that so hard for you to understand?

          Are you still living with the outdated concept of binary gender?

          • I was merely citing Sexual Offences Act, that insists on binary gender and relies on outdated pronoun “he”.

            When I was not citing the act, I used the wording “a person with a penis”.

            Do you agree that this sexists, outdated pamphlet called “Sexual Offences Act” should be deemed null and void?

          • You are certifiably mad! There are 2 sexes – male and female. This is scientifically, physiologically and biologically factual. Gender is a social construct and has no basis in fact.

          • Yes, she (?) certainly is, but unfortunately it is a madness affecting most ‘opinion formers’ and ‘leaders’ in prominent positions in our society.

          • If a woman with a penis forces herself on a woman with a vagina, is this not rape?

            If it is, then rape is not exclusively a male-on-female crime.

            If it is not, then all a rapist has to do is ‘identify’ as a woman since then it will be inherently impossible for ‘her’ to commit rape.

      • Certainly discriminatory and therefore in contravention of the Equalities Act! The politicians who drafted it better arrest themselves.

  14. It has all gotten rather complicated: soon you will have to take your QC with you, on a date, to get advice on kissing. Oh for those glory days in the 1950s when men and women were sane.

    • In the 1950s homosexuality and abortion were illegal and women were expected to be housewives.

      How is that “sane”?

      • Far more sane than 2017, when we no longer can accept the sex we were born with and children are farmed out from birth to strangers. And seemingly we are left with more children than ever suffering from mental illness! Might these be linked.
        Children of the 1950’s had a mother and father and a secure home environment. Women could actually choose not have to work all hours and could concentrate on the important task of bringing up the next generation – many did this whilst working part-time. My mother was certainly never anyone’s doormat !

      • In the 1940s, you deranged cretin, Englishwomen were flying Spitfires and driving fire engines.

        You are a trolling idiot who demeans the very gender that you pretend to be.

          • Lenin liberalized the divorce laws and decriminalized homosexuality. He also passed laws which promoted gender equality and encouraged women to enter the workplace.

          • iberalizeddecriminalized

            aah !!! so you ARE a North American then !!!

            ooooh !!! Let me guess … Canadian ?

            Hey there, jh !!!

            I do realise that there’s a significant chance that this is just another one of “phil” ‘s moronic sockpuppets, but to be fair even if so, it’s far more entertaining than the usual “creation”, regardless of the obvious and characteristic sockpuppet monotone fictionality

            PS are you still banned from contributing to Wikipedia ?

    • As Ms Girl Power Troll said in her comment above, she and her boyfriend use sexual consent apps! A real personification of insanity. Perhaps they should get married. That the best consent app!

  15. Why are men so scared of “female competition”?

    Today’s Millennial women are confident, assertive, independent and better-educated than our male counterparts.

    We are used to competing against and beating men in all areas of life.

    Why would Millennial women therefore settle for a life of housework and drudgery?

    If you can’t stand the heat, boys, get back in the kitchen ;o)

    • State-enforced quotas for female representation is a total opposite of competition. Women require quotas for top jobs, because they know they can’t realistically compete with men on merit.

      > We are used to competing against and beating men in all areas of life.

      Women in public domain minus constant state support equals zero.

      > If you can’t stand the heat, boys, get back in the kitchen ;o)

      I can’t see many boys in kitchens – it seems they can “stand the heat” just fine.

      • Women-only shortlists are a necessary temporary arrangement to break up the “boys’ clubs” where male bosses were failing to achieve gender equality fast enough.

        Once male-dominated, macho workplaces have been eliminated, we won’t need women-only shortlists any more.

        • > Women-only shortlists
          > “female competition”

          Yep. That’s exactly what I am talking about. Inferiority is never short on excuses.

        • Should a woman be given promotion simply down to their sex? What happens if they aren’t very good and a man is better?

          • What happens if they aren’t very good and a man is better?

            Then she becomes a moronic misandrist like grrrrrrlllpowah !!!!

          • Men have been given promotions because of their gender for millennia.

            Why is it so hard to take when the boot’s on the other foot?

          • A lot of butthurt men are bleating about “misandry” when it’s obvious that misogyny is still the real problem in our society – as the rise of Donald Trump has proved.

          • I’m not the one coming in here to post endlessly tedious hateful & sexist rantings against one of the sexes …

          • how could I when I’ve got a boyfriend?

            Because you treat this “man” as if he were your personal “fu! cktoy” devoid of personality — which of course means that “he” is simply just another element in your psychosis.

          • Would you say your boyfriend suffering a fake accusation and convinction for rape be a ‘price worth paying to overcome the patriarchy?’

            If it isn’t do you think other men should pay the price?

          • A lot of butthurt men

            I’d never let you within a thousand miles of this fine appendage of mine.

            Deal with it.

          • > not that he has much choice in the matter 😉

            Do you realise that you just admitted that you are a sexual offender?

          • Good. Make sure you watch your language if you don’t want to end up being under investigation for anonymously reported sexual offence.

          • > Men have been given promotions because of their gender for millennia.

            You know why? Because none of the societies, that chose to promote women survived to our days.

          • So you are projecting your feminist fashions into the past to justify promoting people based on their biology rather than their abilities for the job?

          • Bolsheviks used “past oppression of the peasantry” to justify mass shootings of the gentry, and promote proletariat on top positions.

            Feminism is a ram of the Left, and Left is about random political demagogy justifying a power grab. They are very predictable.

          • My boot is size 14 — what’s yours, my sweety darling moronic cretinous deary dovey sexist shrink-headed darling ?

          • > when I borrow his footwear without asking

            “Borrow without asking” called “stealing” in the criminal code. It’s a criminal offence.

          • So you’ve deliberately hunted down some microscopically diminutive wretch, & intellectually dwarfish, to satisfy your obnoxious and destructive and narcissistic men-hating fantasy life ?

          • He’s not small. He’s 5’9 and 140lbs which is hardly “microscopically diminutive”. He is also a warm-hearted, kind and generous person.

            In the 21st century, it’s no longer unusual for women to take the lead in relationships. Plenty of Millennial men I know are like my boyfriend. That doesn’t make him any less of a man – in fact I think the sign of true manliness is not to feel threatened by strong women.

            That makes him more of a man than any of you.

          • He’s my equal in many ways

            ooooooh, but not all of them, eh ? … cripes you’re abhominable (look it up, if you even own a dictionary that is … )

          • 5’9 and 140lbs most certainly is “microscopically diminutive”

            Do you live in a dwarfland of the flesh as well as the mind ?

          • Plenty of Millennial men I know are like my boyfriend

            Please don’t introduce me to any of these walking turds, cheers …

          • I don’t think they’d want to talk to anyone with your attitude towards women anyway.

            And I’d hate to see their reaction if they found out you voted for Brexit.

          • I’d hate to see their reaction if they found out you voted for Brexit

            How could this collection of cretins possibly “find out” which way I “voted” given that I didn’t and couldn’t ?

            As previously stated, nobody has ever taught you how to think.

          • “…I’d hate to see their reaction if they found out you voted for Brexit.”

            …or indeed presented any evidence of independent thought.

          • “He is also a warm-hearted, kind and generous person”

            There are also a few other things he would have to be……

            Most not printable here.

          • This is a not untypical pattern: An aggressive, arrogant, haughty domineering woman paired up with a quiet, warm, generous man. Hammers need anvils.

            If both parties were equally arrogant, haughty and aggressive the pairing would fly apart in short order. If both parties were warm, kind and generous the pairing would stand a chance of success. The only other way a pairing can be successful is if one party is arrogant and aggressive and the other is submissive.

          • If any ‘job’ requires selection criteria other than the ability to do that ‘job’, the ‘job’ itself is probably unnecessary.

          • All-female quotas are a sign of public, or semi-public sector.

            It is hard to be fired from the public sector for being incompetent. It’s easy to be fired from the public sector for being accused in discrimination.

            What happens is a gradual degradation of all social institutions.

        • Then I suppose that you could not possibly object to any male-only shortlists to break up the “wymmyn clubs” where female bosses were failing to achieve gender equality fast enough.

        • “Once male-dominated, macho workplaces have been eliminated, we won’t need women-only shortlists any more”

          Quite right, you will not, because the company will have gone bust.

          Or if it is a state organisation, it will be privatised.(As will happen with schools and the NHS sooner or later)

    • Why is grrrrrrlllpowah !!!! so paranoid and scared about the male sex ???!!!??!!????!??!!??!!!!!!?

      Can it be that he, she, or it is involved in a life of housework and drudgery pathologically imagined as being imposed by others ??????

    • Yesterday we saw a triumph of ‘diversity’ in action as a young man accused of rape was found not guilty despite the political correctness enforcement squad (formerly known as ‘the Police’) deliberately withheld evidence against him.

      Presumably grrlpower you defend this travesty and support the concept that when ever a woman cries rape a man is automatically unquestionably guilty and that there isn’t any need for the inconvenience of a trial save for sentence.

      As we hear now the calls from the Fascist Left for the re-establishment of death camps for anyone daring to disagree with the ideology it can’t be long before the sistas believe that any man accused should be instantly and summarily executed?

    • The article is about the destruction of legal order, notably the destruction of the need for objective evidence when a person is accused of an offence and the elimination of the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ principle.

      Whether someone is ‘confident, assertive, independent, well-educated’ or not until now has been irrelevant when an accusation is made and someone is brought to court. Someone’s success or otherwise in life is irrelevant to their being guilty or innocent of a crime.

      The fact that you lurch straight into a diatribe about female success vs, male failure shows that you are utterly incapable of grasping the points made in the article. You see EVERYTHING in terms of power struggles. You are in fact typical of the hellish people found in the managerial/professional class, people whose only real emotions are megalomania and greed.

    • Men aren’t scared of women.. they are scared of false allegations; doing gentlemenly things for ladies in case they receive a barrage of abuse for being a decent man etc.. I feel sorry for the future of womanhood.. when all the changes come and they clothed head to toe, with no clits or place in society, they will hark back to these days

  16. Correcting Emily Lindin ‘Sorry. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy that is a price I am absolutely willing to make these innocent men pay.’

    No apologies if it’s been said before on this thread: it needs repeating. It’s just a shame Miss Lindin won’t be here to read it, as I suppose.

  17. “If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of
    undoing the patriarchy that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.’|

    But the silly girl won’t be the one paying the price. She must be thick as well as spiteful.

    • Also she must have been brought up by women and wolves — so doesn’t have a father, son, brothers, uncles, or any male relatives.

      • Probably has father issues or her brother(s) broke the heads off her dolls. There is always a reason for the psychosis. Unfortunately that sort of personal grievance is now pandered to and promoted by the cowardly establishment.

        The very worst people in society are being empowered.

  18. As comments have pointed out here, the real losers will be women. Decent women will be ostracised at work, not included in meetings outside of work, never met alone, never included.

    If you have a choice would you employ a very capable woman or a competent man to work with you on a day to day basis?

    I for one will be choosing the latter.

    My wife for one is very pleased with the new policy.

    She suggests that I review what contact I have with the ones that are already employed.

    Good advice

      • My point is that there will be long term negative consequences for women at work.

        There was a time that I would regularly mentor up and coming women. Give them the opportunity to work with me and take over a new area of responsibility.

        • This is precisely one reason why men don’t get married. And who are the losers? Women! Single mothers who then begin running around and desperately looking for one temporary father after another. Or single women who desperately look for men to impregnate them when their biological clock begins ticking like a time-bomb!

    • That’s a shame. We all need to fend off this rubbish. Dividing the sexes in this way is just part of the ‘grand plan’.

      • I am much more careful.

        I will not even share a car with a lone female.

        A few months ago I was met at the airport by a female colleague.

        I took a taxi.

        • Precaution/prevention is better than cure. You are a wise man. I know many men who have made similar decisions.

    • After reading this article, I will most certainly employ men of calibre rather than women who match this calibre in my organisation. I don’t have to fill quotas with members of the opposite sex.

  19. The funiest thing is, the transexuals love this whole affair.
    A friend of mine, says ‘she’ has never been hit on more; and the dating agency and trans-marriage sites are doing a great trade.
    As she commented “Its like we’ve become wives 3.0; not just 2.0. The men always say we’re more feminine, easier to be with and they don’t have to be afraid of giving offence or walking on egg shells!”
    You can’t make this stuff up, but as with economics there are always alternatives.

Comments are closed.